Talk:Real estate/Archives/2011

Text from 2003

According to the recent USPTO ruling in Arleen Freeman v. National Association of Realtors, Realtor is still a defensible trademark, unfortunately. Realty, however, is not. -- Dreamword 23:42 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Why are real property and real estate redirected to the same page. Real property is not the same thing as real estate. Real property includes such things as easements, incorporeal heridiments, etc.., this page should be moved to real estate (currently a redirect) an an article about real property and its elements started here. Alex756 00:39 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

What external links?

External links are often added to the article. Most of them look as spam or specific for small area. Maybe some rules what links are generally informative should be established. Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most of them are spam, and some of them are disguised as information pages or country-specific pages; the only way to tell is to check them. They're usually quickly reverted. This time I put a warning in an html comment:

==External links==
All links to commercial sites (including those disguised as "country-specific information")
will be deleted, please do not waste your time and ours. Thank you.

National Association of Realtors is an exception because it has its own article, so I put it in "See also" instead. This could be a good rule for future links: only organizations with their own valid articles are allowed here. Lawrence Lavigne 03:11, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Does not "Real estate" derive from the fact that these were protected by "real" actions i.e actions that would give back possession of the estate ?

Does anyone have a link to Unit Mixes on Florida Apartments?

Real Estate

it was not my intention to disguise anything nanaimoinformation.com is a link I placed in the Nanaimo section (My hometown) it is a website with great information for those interested in the city of nanaimo, including information on the towns greatest resource its - outdoor activities, hikes etc www.nanaimoinformation.com/extension-ridge.php (For example)- the real estate webmasters community link I placed was incorrect, I put real estate community, and meant to link to www.realestatewebmasters.com/forum.php it is one of the largest real estate discussion groups on the web, and is not commercial in any way.

I am new to Wiki and trying to figure out how this works - your guideance and patience is appreciate, I will read over the TOS again to make sure I am posting correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.40.200 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your local website appears to be not of interest to the vast majority of readers (see discussion above) and the forum appears to be relevant only to estate agents interested in SEO techniques, and therefore the links don't seem suitable for an encyclopaedia. You can find guidelines about external links here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Real = Royal?

The Discussion for the Real property article says that the 'real' of 'real estate' comes from a different Latin root than 'royal'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysbro (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In spite of the name, the law does not consider real property more genuine or 'real' than personal property. In law, the word real means relating to a thing (from Latin res, matter or thing), as distinguished from a person. Thus the law broadly distinguishes between real property (land and anything affixed to it) and personal property (everything else, e.g., clothing, furniture, money). The conceptual difference was between immovable property, which would transfer title along with the land, and movable property, which a person would retain title to. The term is not derived from the notion of land having historically been 'royal' property. The word royal — and its Spanish cognate real — come from the unrelated Latin word rex, meaning king.

In _Cashflow Quadrant_, Robert Kiyosaki states that 'real' is cognate with 'royal' -- I wonder what his sources are for this assertion.

--Syd Barrett 09:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the term "real estate" meant a "royal holding." The idea is that you never really "own" a property, that the government, or king does, and they can therefore charge taxes. You hold the property (estate meaning holding) with license from the king (or government). I also seem to remember hearing a rumor that the title contracts never actually declare ownership of the property, just ownership of the title to the property. --mkahmvet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.76.147 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to "throw in" with those who assert that the "real" in "real estate" refers to "royal." If the word following "real" was "property" rather than "estate" Wiki's claim that "real = thing" would be strongly supported. However, the word following "real" is "estate." Estate means "what a person owns." Therefore "real estate" litterally means "what the king owns." Q.E.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.170.114 (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a Latin teacher, and own an Oxford English Dictionary. Thus, while both explanations make sense from a linguistic standpoint, the "res, realis" argument is the one currently supported by the OED, and therefore the matter must be closed to anyone who isn't qualified to question the OED.  :) While there are words that come to us through middle spanish where "real" is a evolution of "royal," the vast majority of definitions of "real," including any word that connotes "existence," come from "res." --Mrcolj (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mrcolj, your contention that "the matter must be closed to anyone who isn't qualified to question the OED" is fallacious: it is an example of argument from authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.252.36 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I take the view that the word 'real' in 'real estate' originates from the Anglo-Norman word 'real' and can mean either 'royal' or 'matter, thing' or both 'royal' and 'matter, thing', depending on the context, because I was born in the UK, shortly before the end of the Second World War, and that is what I was taught in the course of my private education and training to become a real estate surveyor recognised by the Crown, with a view to assisting the Church of which my parents were adherents, to develop missionary settlements in UK territories abroad, which in those days included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many other states and islands scattered around the world that have since become independent of the UK, and in former English territories in the USA that became independent of the UK as a result of the American War of Independence, though the UK retained in some cases, and acquired in others, rights of way, etc, on those independent territories, and those rights are still considered to be part of the real estate of the UK Crown in the 'real' = 'royal' sense, although they are on real estate of the independent country in the 'real' = 'matter, thing' sense; all of which made perfect sense to me in the context of the History of the British Constitution, Empire and Commonwealth that I studied during that education and training; and, consequently, I have diligently applied and asserted those concepts throughout my ensuing 50 years professional career, without challenge from anyone at all, let alone anyone with sufficient specialist knowledge and authority to dispute it in law, although, for health reasons, I never actually got to work abroad.

I am new to posting comments in Wikipedia, but would like to suggest that to avoid any further confusion, Wikipedia inserts the acronym 'USA' between the words 'In' and 'law' at the beginning of the first paragraph of the section on Etymology, combines the first and the second paragraphs into one to reflect that these are USA facts and opinions, and adds a final paragraph saying 'In the UK, where the term real estate originated, the earliest cited example in the Oxford English Dictionary is 1605. One commentator on this Wikipedia entry alleges that the 'real' in 'real estate' is an Anglo-Norman word that could mean either 'royal' or 'matter, thing' or both 'royal' and 'matter, thing', depending on the particular context; and the fact that the USA usage has dropped the 'royal' aspect reflects that the USA is not ruled by a monarch.' I can provide a more detailed account for my holding these views, should that be necessary.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.38.162 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Real/Royal ... what an editor believes is true is irrelevant - as is any original research on their part to establish the claim. What matters are what is published in reliable sources - if a reliable source exists which states the claims, then it's appropriate for inclusion. Otherwise, it's personal synthesis of available data to reach a conclusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Barek. Point taken and understood. Though I consider that there is a subtle but important difference in law between a personal synthesis and a professional synthesis. Thanks in particular for the links. They make fascinating reading and reminded me that on two occasions, that is once in my teens, and once in my late adulthood, I relied on some original research of my own that, in my teens, an academic deemed unverifiable and therefore invalid, and, in my late adulthood, a different academic regarded it as valid due to that subtle but important difference. However, I will try to find published sources to give the verifiability Wikipedia's policies demand to my argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.38.162 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Authority number 3 of the Wikipedia entry on "real estate", the Online Etymological Dictionary, is challengeable in four important respects: (a) there is earlier authoritative etymological evidence of the word "real" than the C14th, namely, the C12th; (b) in that earlier use it meant "royal" rather than "relating to a thing"; (c) there are earlier recorded appearances of the term "real estate" than 1666, namely, 1605 and c.1625; and (d) "real, actually existing, true", the use recorded in the 1660s, is not the "oldest English sense of the word", but "royal" is, as stated at (b) above (source: all Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition). Wikipedia's authority number 4 on the main page, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, may also be challengeable for reasons (a) and (b) above. In the current discussion page of Wikipedia: Verifiability, Blueboar says, "When reliable sources disagree we present both sides of the debate... phrasing the different viewpoints as being the opinions of proponents of each side, and not stating them as fact." [Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)]. This begs the question whether the "real" = "royal" / "real" = "matter, thing" argument merits the type of treatment that Blueboar describes. I think, both personally and professionally, that it does. adriant.esq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.38.162 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been, for want of a better word, 'essaying' my knowledge and opinions about the 'real=royal?' issue arising from the main page of this article on 'real estate', from as it appeared on 11 Sept 2011 until it appears now, 22 Sept 2011. Because I am retired from my paid professional career, and have a good pension from it, I do not need to seek paid employment, so, I can afford to dedicate a good deal of my time to such a project as this. I have therefore opened an account with Wikipedia to register my username and enable me to sign my entries in discussion pages. This is my first entry on a dicussion page to bear my signature. Readers will note my use of the abbrevatiated version of the post-nominal title 'Esquire' in my username, and should they care to read my user page and the main page of this article on 'real estate' they will see why I am lawfully entitled to 'wear' it after my name. At the time that I was awarded the title it was my intention to spend the rest of my life living and working in the former British colonies beyond the shores of Great Britain, but, probably due to my health problems, I have never been able to obtain a position outside mainland UK. So, whilst I was trained and qualified to work in those former colonies, the whole of my work experience has been here in Great Britain, more in particular, England and Wales. I sincerely hope that explains the context of my edits on the main page of the article on real estate and my entries here in its discussion page. 81.157.6.222 (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested in pursuing this ?real=royal? question any further might be interested in a little reconnoitre of the wikipedia article on Thing (assembly) - a.k.a. the witan or witenagemot comprising the assembly or parliament of anglo-saxon wise men that were the kingmakers of anglo-saxon england and wales - so it looks as if the real=royal side of this tennis match is now approaching, game, set, and match! 86.159.3.205 (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Educational game

I put together a Real Estate game that walks the player through the Resedential buying proccess. The game is featured on a Realator's web site, but it is educational and I want to submit it into the links section. I tried doing so, and it was quickly deleted as if it were spam. I thought this was an open community, and I want to make my contribution. What should I do? The game can be found at westmi4u.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.157.13 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

While the game may be educational, the site is primarily commercial and as such was correctly removed by --Aude. He even posted a standard warning message to the talk page of the address you posted the link from. Please read the pages linked from here. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder on Wiki guidelines for external links

From the Wikipedia:External links page:

Acceptable links:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

Links to avoid:

:Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services......

Comment: It seems to me in many cases involving real estate articles (see also FSBO), that far too many commercial links exist to businesses simply selling their services and NOT providing information to further our knowledge of the topic.

Ultimately, we may have all to agree on a limited number and, as the Wiki guide linesarticle notes, provide justification for inclusion.

Vivaverdi 03:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opionion, links to individual websites promoting an individual agents are not suitable for an article of this sort. Hence, I support the most recent removal of an agent site by Rasmus Faber.

Vivaverdi 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This site should have reference links rather than external links. Most external links are commercial either way. I have deleted the entire external links section minus the warning. I am tired of two additional real estate commercial links. I have added the wikilink for Multiple Listing Service instead to describe the purpose. Please support me to keep commercial unrelated external links out. --Steroid Expert 08:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

AGREE with above. This article is getting overloaded with links to commercial websites. Vivaverdi 13:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

AGREE with above Due to excessive spamming I have also removed external links to commercial sites. I have also added the old no commercial links sign back in. It is simply helping abuse this article's quality MKS 06:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Support removal of "Lone Wolf" purely commercial wiki article link

Vivaverdi 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Phenomena of low-commission contracts

Where in Wikipedia can we find (or should we find) discussion of the phenomena of low-commission house sale and house purchase agreements? I've searched the 'List of real estate topics' and Real estate categories, and came up empty. This surprised me.

I don't know much about the phenomena, but I know it is and has been talked about a lot recently on the internet. Here is an CUNY journalism professor:

• http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/09/03/death-to-the-6-percent-2/

and here is a recent New York Times article on the subject:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/business/yourmoney/03real.html?ex=1158724800&en=71c1dba09d8b8f04&ei=5070

which has this to say about it:

"The Internet has radically changed the way consumers buy books and airline tickets, trade stock and learn news. But the real estate industry has resisted change — and protected its commission structure — by controlling the information on its Multiple Listing Service database of properties for sale." (New York Times, 3 Sep 2006)

The phenomena seems to have a history, and perhaps is trending up or trending down. Surely, this is topic that fits somewhere in the encyclopedia of encyclopedias? Am I just missing where it is? N2e 04:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

See Multiple Listing Service and Flat fee MLS

Vivaverdi, 6 Oct European keyboard has no bracjets and tlides)

Thanks Vivaverdi. That helps. Those articles need a bit of work, but now I know where to find them. N2e 03:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article look like a big block of text, surely there is no need to elaberate or provide the details of which rules need to be infured. I request the native editors to see to the matter. frummer 14:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Too American focused

I find this article, and many other wikipedia articles, over American focused. For example, there is no reason to believe that the term "property" has been shortened from "real property" rather than the other way around.

Enough criticism, let's talk improvements. Since the legal term "real estate" is specific to the US(and Canada?), I suggest to state this clearly at places where appropriate. I am happy to do so but I have no idea which parts are American only and which aren't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siriushoward (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Where can we go to get information from other countries? (Patricia Op 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I really do think we need more info for foreign policies. Again, does anyone have any idea where to go? (Patricia Op 21:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

I have created a new section header called "Real estate terminology and practice outside the United States", under which are the existing sections of the term in Europe and practice in Mexico and Central America.

It is a start. Maybe we can go from here in including sections on different national practices as find out about them. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The text about real estate in Mexico and Central America is very American centered too (referring to Mexico as "they" for example). 71.102.74.156 (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing {{global}}

at this time, as stale topic, showing no progress here and plenty of edits since added 18 months back. Please police your criteria when hanging such tags, and remove them as soon as possible. // FrankB 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Help

Listen, I Neeed to Know (As Soon As Possible) if it is Legal for Someone to Refuse to Sell You A Home Even If You Have Paid Your Due Money? My Father is on the Verge of Losing his Home Because of this. If anyone can, please Help. I'm Doing Research as We Speak so that He Can Get His Home Back. Please... If You do Not Know How to Post a Comment in Wikipedia, eMail Possible Answers and Explanations to Me at christianufo@gmail.com. Please...--Christian Cardozo (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed 'citation needed' tag in etymology

There was a 'citation needed' tag on the statement that the "real" is not related to the connection to royal ownership. The previously given reference etymology is tantamount to a reference that alternative etymologies are erroneous, and so I removed the tag. Ordinary Person (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While we can say definitively that "real" comes from "res" (not "rex"--even though "res" may come from "rex" on some level, or vice versa), the source given doesn't actually say anything about the etymology, nor is dictionary.com the greatest authority on a controversial issue. I physically went and looked in the OED, but there's no cheap online version... --Mrcolj (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Short sale (real estate) internal wiki link from this article

There seems to have been no dicussion on either this or the short sale talk page.

Of greater relevance, the actual short sale article itself needs a lot of work. Right now, it reads like a promo piece or is copied from an existing web site or other source. Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

US bias

I really find titles like "Real estate terminology and practice outside the United States" very US-centric. Better would be "Real estate terminology and practice", subdivided into, "US", "UK", "France", "Other" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugops (talk • contribs) 10:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is a very US focused article and I like the idea of having it subdivided, perhaps with an included link to country specific real estate search engines. (Such as gartoo, or Zoomla for the UK). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcustaylor100 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

real estate

I have tried to improve on the defintion of real estate which i consider to be mistaken in a numbe rof arrears. I have added a new text at the statr based on my Encyclopedia of Real Estate Terms which is now in its thrid edition. It just get deleted. The first time I was asked to wrtie it in my own style. As the author of the Encyclopedia this is my style, but to comly I wrote it again in a slightly more lay version. I am now not eusre how to progess forward. I have read the main pag ena dit syas try editing the page, which is what I did. Aslo although there is mention of copy right issues it does not appear how to get this issue resolved when the contributor is the hoder of the copyright. No doubt someone can emlighten me on how to proceed. Damien —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien Abbott (talk • contribs) 04:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Add history

Could a section be added that shows the history of US "real estate empires" where the first settlers of the west, which had very few people & buildings even in 1900, could claim millions of acres of FREE land (stolen from Native Americans) who got very rich by SELLING it to the second wave & still today. Here are photos of 1900 LA: http://thechive.com/2009/02/los-angeles-before-sigalert-31-photos/ Stars4change (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Presentation is too American

The article is written with the United States presented as a property law foundation and norm, with the rest of the world treated as an appendage that exists only by contrast with the US, even thought the US is just over 200 years old. For example, the section Real estate in Mexico and Central America treats that region as conceptually dependent on the US, and is not treated in its own right. The section begins, "Real estate business in Mexico, Canada, Guam, and Central America operates differently than in the United States." Who cares? You could just as easily and with equal irrelevance say they operate differently than Namibia or Taiwan. Why not say arbitrarily that US law is not exactly like Romania's? The United States focus of the article is over-determining and needs correction. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia and this article is badly unbalanced. — O'Dea (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)